A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 7th 17, 04:47 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,795
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

"Doomsdrzej" wrote

| Higher prices? Bull****. Competition also includes offering a better
| service for LESS and undercut everyone else.
|

What competition? I have a service I like. My
other option is Verizon, which I'd like to avoid.
I'm lucky. Many people have only one option for
highspeed Internet. Some have none. My brother
in NH only recently got DSL. Up until now his only
option was dish, which failed on cloudy days.

Even with competition, this is a classic case
of dual or triple monopoly. If you have a CVS and
a Walgreens in your town you could say there's
competition, but they're both national chains,
carrying pretty much the same stuff for pretty
much the same prices. There's a difference
between competition and collusion. The latter
is what we have. It may or may not be deliberate,
illegal price fixing, but the result is the same.

The point of Net neutrality is not to give control
to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that
the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service.
That the people renting you the wire should only
be renting the wire and not controlling the content.
If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see
online that's a separate issue.


Ads
  #2  
Old December 7th 17, 05:39 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 429
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

Mayayana wrote:

"Slimer" wrote

| Higher prices? Bull****. Competition also includes offering a better
| service for LESS and undercut everyone else.
|

What competition? I have a service I like. My
other option is Verizon, which I'd like to avoid.
I'm lucky. Many people have only one option for
highspeed Internet.


Exactly. Slime's right-wing propaganda is failing him, again.

Some have none. My brother
in NH only recently got DSL. Up until now his only
option was dish, which failed on cloudy days.

Even with competition, this is a classic case
of dual or triple monopoly. If you have a CVS and
a Walgreens in your town you could say there's
competition, but they're both national chains,
carrying pretty much the same stuff for pretty
much the same prices. There's a difference
between competition and collusion. The latter
is what we have. It may or may not be deliberate,
illegal price fixing, but the result is the same.

The point of Net neutrality is not to give control
to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that
the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service.
That the people renting you the wire should only
be renting the wire and not controlling the content.
If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see
online that's a separate issue.


Good post!

--
"COLA losers like chrisv detest success of any kind. It's as simple
as that." - Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly
  #3  
Old December 7th 17, 06:08 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Doomsdrzej[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:47:29 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Doomsdrzej" wrote

| Higher prices? Bull****. Competition also includes offering a better
| service for LESS and undercut everyone else.
|

What competition? I have a service I like. My
other option is Verizon, which I'd like to avoid.
I'm lucky. Many people have only one option for
highspeed Internet. Some have none. My brother
in NH only recently got DSL. Up until now his only
option was dish, which failed on cloudy days.

Even with competition, this is a classic case
of dual or triple monopoly. If you have a CVS and
a Walgreens in your town you could say there's
competition, but they're both national chains,
carrying pretty much the same stuff for pretty
much the same prices. There's a difference
between competition and collusion. The latter
is what we have. It may or may not be deliberate,
illegal price fixing, but the result is the same.

The point of Net neutrality is not to give control
to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that
the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service.
That the people renting you the wire should only
be renting the wire and not controlling the content.
If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see
online that's a separate issue.


I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.
  #4  
Old December 8th 17, 04:31 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Bob F[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

On 12/7/2017 9:08 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:

I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.

LOL!

  #5  
Old December 8th 17, 02:24 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Doomsdrzej[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:57:17 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Doomsdrzej" wrote

| The point of Net neutrality is not to give control
| to the gov't. The point is to enforce the idea that
| the Internet is a utility, not a commercial service.
| That the people renting you the wire should only
| be renting the wire and not controlling the content.
| If you think the gov't is controlling what you can see
| online that's a separate issue.
|
| I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
| that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
| organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
| the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.

Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather
than "think" it's true? If the US has given control
of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be
a record of that.


I did and there are.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet

Ignoring the rest of your post.
  #6  
Old December 8th 17, 03:47 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,795
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

"Doomsdrzej" wrote

| | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
| | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
| | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
| | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.
|
| Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather
| than "think" it's true? If the US has given control
| of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be
| a record of that.
|
| I did and there are.
|
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet
|

Did you actually read up on what that means? The US
is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone
book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's
not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control
over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality
*does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can*
block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed
to give them control.

| Ignoring the rest of your post.

Any reason for that? You don't like new information?
You don't like your beliefs complicated by details? The rest
of my post was just explaining the details of how you
can protect your privacy and freedom online. You said
that was what you were interested in. You're afraid
you'll lose your freedom to Google and Facebook. I'm
telling you how not to let that happen.

So it seems you actually don't care about online
freedom. What do you care about? The luscious pleasure
of righteous indignation? Watch out. The people telling
you what to be mad about are not trying to help.
They're just plutocrats who put greed before humanity.
They know that they need to inflame popular opinion
with one hand if they want to get away with stealing
your money with the other hand. You're being played.

I suppose you haven't actually looked at the current
tax bill either. But you're probably for it, right? You
want the gov't to stop wasting money to do things
like helping paraplegics with medicaid and providing
health care to the elderly who've paid for that healthcare
through SS taxes? Did you know that's exactly what Paul
Ryan says he wants to cut once he cuts taxes for the
rich? Read the paper. Read your own right-wing media.
People like Ryan are not even hiding their lies. They
know they can just throw out trigger phrases like "fake
news", "liberal media", and "government waste", and
millions of people will believe whatever follows.


  #7  
Old December 8th 17, 04:03 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 429
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

Mayayana wrote:

Doomsdrzej (AKA "Slimer") wrote:

Ignoring the rest of your post.


Any reason for that? You don't like new information?
You don't like your beliefs complicated by details?


Have you ever known a right-wing propagandist wanting to hear the
unbiased truth? He kill-files people for the "crime" of being
"liberal".

--
"I hate practising Muslims." - "Slimer"
  #8  
Old December 8th 17, 04:04 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,795
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

"Wolf K" wrote

|
| It appears that Doomsday is one of those people who have great skill and
| knowledge in some things, as shown by his useful _technical_ posts. It's
| when he goes outside that domain that his analytical powers desert him.
|

I figured it's useful to air out this topic since
it came up. Net neutrality is a critical issue and
few people seem to understand it. Though I'm
not sure any explanations will get past the
disinformation from the Rush Limbaughs of the
world. I'm only hoping that the discussion might
inform a few people who didn't know about the
issue at all.


  #9  
Old December 8th 17, 04:20 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Doomsdrzej[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Doomsdrzej" wrote

| | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
| | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
| | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
| | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.
|
| Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather
| than "think" it's true? If the US has given control
| of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be
| a record of that.
|
| I did and there are.
|
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet
|

Did you actually read up on what that means? The US
is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone
book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's
not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control
over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality
*does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can*
block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed
to give them control.


I will simply the Daily Stomer as a perfect example of how this INDEED
gives them complete control over what people can or can't see on the
Internet. Despite the fact that freedom of speech protects the Daily
Stomer's objectionable content, domain name providers routinely
removed their ability to have a web site with an address other than
something like 164.68.32.1.

Ignoring the rest of your posrt again.
  #10  
Old December 8th 17, 04:22 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,795
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

"chrisv" wrote

| Any reason for that? You don't like new information?
| You don't like your beliefs complicated by details?
|
| Have you ever known a right-wing propagandist wanting to hear the
| unbiased truth? He kill-files people for the "crime" of being
| "liberal".
|

I figured everyone deserves respectful discussion.
And I have a lot of sympathy for some right-wing
issues. But in general I post with the view that it's
a group discussion that will live online. Some things
are worth trying to clarify. Some posts are just
convenient excuses to do that. For example, there's
a compulsive arguer in the Mac and photo groups
who spews derision and misinformation. But he provides
wonderful opportunities to set the record straight
on a variety of topics that he can't help arguing about.


  #11  
Old December 8th 17, 07:17 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

On 2017-12-08 7:20 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Doomsdrzej" wrote

| | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
| | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
| | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
| | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.
|
| Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather
| than "think" it's true? If the US has given control
| of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be
| a record of that.
|
| I did and there are.
|
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet
|

Did you actually read up on what that means? The US
is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone
book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's
not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control
over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality
*does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can*
block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed
to give them control.


I will simply the Daily Stomer as a perfect example of how this INDEED
gives them complete control over what people can or can't see on the
Internet. Despite the fact that freedom of speech protects the Daily
Stomer's objectionable content, domain name providers routinely
removed their ability to have a web site with an address other than
something like 164.68.32.1.

Ignoring the rest of your posrt again.


As usual, idiots such as yourself misunderstand "freedom of speech".

No one has the freedom to demand that anyone else help disseminate his
or her speech.
  #12  
Old December 8th 17, 07:46 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Doomsdrzej[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:00:18 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-12-08 10:20, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Doomsdrzej" wrote

| | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
| | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
| | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
| | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.
|
| Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather
| than "think" it's true? If the US has given control
| of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be
| a record of that.
|
| I did and there are.
|
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet
|

Did you actually read up on what that means? The US
is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone
book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's
not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control
over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality
*does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can*
block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed
to give them control.


I will simply the Daily Stomer as a perfect example of how this INDEED
gives them complete control over what people can or can't see on the
Internet. Despite the fact that freedom of speech protects the Daily
Stomer's objectionable content, domain name providers routinely
removed their ability to have a web site with an address other than
something like 164.68.32.1.



And abolishing net neutrality will change this? How?

Actually, the Daily Stormer's website is easily accessible, if you know how.


It is with Tor or now as a result of the fact that Anglin keeps
finding ways to get a domain name despite the UN and its numbskulls'
best efforts.
  #13  
Old December 8th 17, 07:49 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Doomsdrzej[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:17:57 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2017-12-08 7:20 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Doomsdrzej" wrote

| | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
| | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
| | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
| | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.
|
| Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather
| than "think" it's true? If the US has given control
| of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be
| a record of that.
|
| I did and there are.
|
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet
|

Did you actually read up on what that means? The US
is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone
book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's
not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control
over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality
*does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can*
block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed
to give them control.


I will simply the Daily Stomer as a perfect example of how this INDEED
gives them complete control over what people can or can't see on the
Internet. Despite the fact that freedom of speech protects the Daily
Stomer's objectionable content, domain name providers routinely
removed their ability to have a web site with an address other than
something like 164.68.32.1.

Ignoring the rest of your posrt again.


As usual, idiots such as yourself misunderstand "freedom of speech".

No one has the freedom to demand that anyone else help disseminate his
or her speech.


How are the UN and the domain name providers _helping_ him spread his
message by accepting his money for a product or service? If a black
baker prepared a cake for a KKK member, would he be aiding the KKK
member in spreading his message?

Stop being an idiot, Baked Anus.
  #14  
Old December 8th 17, 07:56 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

On 2017-12-08 10:49 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:17:57 -0800, Alan Baker
wrote:

On 2017-12-08 7:20 AM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:47:40 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Doomsdrzej" wrote

| | I don't think that the government is controlling the content; I think
| | that the American government handed the power to do so to a useless
| | organization called the United Nations as well as the companies behind
| | the most powerful services on the Internet like Google and Facebook.
|
| Wouldn't it make more sense to research it rather
| than "think" it's true? If the US has given control
| of the Internet to the UN then surely there'd be
| a record of that.
|
| I did and there are.
|
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet
|

Did you actually read up on what that means? The US
is giving up oversight of DNS, which is basically the phone
book of URLs that allows you to reach a website. It's
not a notable transition and doesn't give the UN control
over your use of the Internet. Giving up Net neutrality
*does* mean you lose control. Comcast or Verizon *can*
block you from visiting specific sites if the law is changed
to give them control.

I will simply the Daily Stomer as a perfect example of how this INDEED
gives them complete control over what people can or can't see on the
Internet. Despite the fact that freedom of speech protects the Daily
Stomer's objectionable content, domain name providers routinely
removed their ability to have a web site with an address other than
something like 164.68.32.1.

Ignoring the rest of your posrt again.


As usual, idiots such as yourself misunderstand "freedom of speech".

No one has the freedom to demand that anyone else help disseminate his
or her speech.


How are the UN and the domain name providers _helping_ him spread his
message by accepting his money for a product or service? If a black
baker prepared a cake for a KKK member, would he be aiding the KKK
member in spreading his message?


The UN is not involved in even the slightest way. Until you can
acknowledge that truth, you're just a kook.

If a baker of any colour was asked to bake a cake and put a message on
it that he or she found offensive, he or she would be free to decline.

You have freedom of speech, but that freedom does not ever compel anyone
else to help you disseminate that speech. When you pay someone to be
your DNS provider, they are free to decide if they want your custom or not.


Stop being an idiot, Baked Anus.


  #15  
Old December 9th 17, 07:52 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,795
Default What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth

"Mayayana" wrote

| Today's news at WashPo? Holiday cookie recipes is the
| top item. Los Angeles is burning and war is breaking out
| in Palestine. But WashPo is writing about cookie recipes.

On second thought, I guess I'm being too harsh. This
reindeer ginger snaps recipe is not to be missed:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/im...s/reindeer.jpg


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.